Is 100g protein enough to gain muscle compared to a higher amount?

[existentone]

@randileanne It’s per pound of muscle.

If you go by body weight you’ll clear the target easily.

The actual science is by lean mass, but it’s easier to go by fully body weight as it’s easier to weigh and you’ll clear the target by a lot of you do.

However if you want to calculate your bmi and bone density to accurately weight your bones and fat just for the sake of being pedantic that’s all u

 

[randileanne]

@existentone It's mostly that I am vegetarian and trying to kinda recomp right now. So I'm interested in knowing so I can better plan my meals, etc.

 

[miira]

@fanofreason The point you missed was about “gorging”. One of those is significantly more food to consume than the other. Having more muscle doesn’t make my stomach any bigger.

 

[fanofreason]

@miira I’m not doctor, but I think overall size might have an effect on size of your stomach(and other organs) too

But regardless, a bigger person requires more food because their maintenance energy expenditure is greater than a smaller person. It’s all proportional.

 

[topmicroscope]

@wantforum lol literally got into a debate with my personal trainer about this. I’m not force feeding myself to hit protein goals

 

[mitchilita]

@skiesofaetherius And even then I think most can get away with less and still get decent gains. A lot of these studies are using highly advanced lifters who are very experienced, have a very developed physique, and have optimized routines. and are typically trying to put on muscle as fast as possible. So they are approaching the theoretical limit of how much muscle can be built and are using every bit of protein consumed. Random people working out aren't usually at that point and so there is probably not as much lost if they don't consume the maximum amount.

 

[cookiesforthree]

@mitchilita The way you state this really helped me understand why more isn’t helpful in a super casual lifter. Thanks for that!

 

[ziggomatic]

@cookiesforthree People often get hyper focused on the smaller details that get you that extra 1% boost, and often as a result end up overlooking a lot of the much bigger issues.

 

[jdlaw1]

@mitchilita exactly, im no professional but couldnt see any difference between 1.5g/kg and 1.75g/kg (idk thats around 0.75 and 0.875g/lb)

and right now im even lower half of the time (1.25g/kg, 0.625g/lb) and im still fine

 

[reborn777]

@skiesofaetherius There is evidence of benefit for cut/recomp to go higher, but for normal gains the 0,8 is fine.

The benefit drops significantly going over 1g/pound so it’s more of a personal eating prefference at that point. For me, I love high protein foods, but going much over 1g/pound causes my digestion to rebel, lol.

Additional points:

• we’re talking ~lean mass, so if you have signifficant body weight you should dial it down
• roid users can utilise much more and this is probably the source of the insanely high recommendations online

 

[mpholyghostgirl]

@skiesofaetherius Yeah you just end up with very dense brick like poops and fat gain if you over consume protein.

 

[dawn16]

@skiesofaetherius Feel this is a bit misleading.

.82g/lb is fine. I eat 1g per lb personally.

But it needs to be spread throughout the day over various meals. The body will only absorb so much protein specifically to build muscle over a set period. Any more protein will go towards other functions.

So .82g/lb split as evenly as possible throughout the day is best to build muscle. Eating 100g of protein in one meal won't be as efficient as 5 meals of 20g every 2 hours for example

 

[kc8vji]

@rukaria Yeah I agree with this. I think a lot of people exaggerate how much you need. I also think it just isn't understood well enough. Like how does protein scale upwards in a straight linear fashion but your bmr has the formula:

BMR = 88.362 + (13.397 x weight in kg) + (4.799 x height in cm) – (5.677 x age in years)

and thats just for men. theres separate one for women.

 

[rme09]

@kc8vji The BMR formula is a linear regression using weight, height, and age as regressors. So they gathered a bunch of people, measured their BMR and then used their weight, height, and age to try to predict the BMR. The 88.362 is a bias term (like the y-intercept), so while the formula isn't linear it is affine.

 

[kc8vji]

@rme09 You're correct. Each variable is linear but there's 3 of them. so it doesn't just go up as dramatically as saying people twice the weight should eat twice the amount, yet that's what we do for protein. If a 6 foot tall, 25 year old weighed 60kg his BMR would be 1628, while the same height & age person who weighed 120kg would have a BMR of 2432. That is roughly 1.5x the BMR. So based on typical advice the big guy would be told to eat 100% more protein but only 50% more calories.

It doesn't take into account people who are underweight vs overweight, untrained vs trained or young vs old.

 

[shrinkerbell]

@kc8vji So like on the day of your birthday, your BMI drops a bit even if you weigh the same?

 

[kc8vji]

@shrinkerbell 1 year doesn't make much of a difference. I just copied that formula into excel, kept the weight and height the same and changed the age by a year and it dropped 6 calories. Then I added a few decades and it changed significantly. Here's an 80kg guy who is 6 feet talls BMR (note, BMR is only part of your daily calories. Its not TDEE)

Age
BMR

25
1896

26
1890

50
1754

70
1640

90
1527

 

[redbear]

@shrinkerbell Unless using decimals

 

[dimwitkevin]

@shrinkerbell You can use decimals if you really want to be specific, e.g. 34 years and 100 days is about 34.274. But if you just use your integer age, it doesn't deviate from reality by an appreciable amount.

 

[saultopaul]

@rukaria Thank you so much!! I will check that link out!